• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Cinestill DF96 monobath

  • Huss
  • Deleted
Hmmm. I think I've got a roll of CMS20 (the original version) around somewhere. I may have to shoot a few frames and clip it to test in DF96 with only (by then) six rolls processed. Or maybe clip the leader back and try that in the stuff in the light. After all, we know it'll develop in regular developers, and fix in common fixers -- but question is, does the emulsion lift in Df96?
 

How is CMS20 different from CMS20 II that I have?
 
As far as I can tell, it's a very similar repurposed microfilm stock. Not the same parent stock, else ADOX wouldn't have discontinued and reintroduced. Such a test might mean nothing, as I see you hinting.
 
Donald Qualls said:
As far as I can tell, it's a very similar repurposed microfilm stock. Not the same parent stock, else ADOX wouldn't have discontinued and reintroduced. Such a test might mean nothing, as I see you hinting.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. As you pointed out I had to use a long dev time (almost 9 minutes) because the batch of DF96 had so many rolls through it already.

I'm going to play it safe moving forward and avoid Siberra and Adox.
 
Huss said:
I'm going to play it safe moving forward and avoid Siberra and Adox.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting 35mm, it would make sense to do a clip test with any film in the slow lith, duplicating, and document film categories. I don't know any reason they'd have softer gelatin, but it's surely thinner, and they're all prone to image bleaching by rapid fixers.
 

That of course is a very sensible idea!

I managed to salvage some images from the Pan F 50 thanks to LightRoom..

Nikon N2000, 45mm 2.8P

When life gives you lemons..post up a super grainy and contrasty pic.



It actually is far more interesting than if things had worked out correctly!
 
New batch of DF96. This was shipped dry and I had to mix it up myself - no biggie right? Just add packet A to 750ml of distilled water while stirring, then add packet B, keep stirring, top off to 1000ml.
Packet A was powder, packet B was large granules, that took FOREVER to finally dissolve. At least 10 minutes of stirring away. It seems ok now, and the film came out great but I was a but surprised. Temp was about 80 for the water.

Leica M4-2, 7A 35mm f2, Arista 400, Cinestill DF96 Monobath

 
Huss said:
packet B was large granules, that took FOREVER to finally dissolve.
Click to expand...

The large granules are sodium thiosulfate (aka hypo) in its natural crystal form. Dissolves much faster if the water is even 10-15 F warmer. I mixed mine at 100+ F, and it only took a couple minutes for those to dissolve. Of course, I did then have to wait for the soup to cool...
 

Good to know, thanks.
 
Hasselblad H1, 80mm 2.8, Ilford Delta 400 exp 2004, Cinestill DF96 Monobath


 
Leica R8, Leitz 28mm 2.8 Elmarit, Arista 400 Premium, Cinestill DF96 Monobath

 
Just developed my 16th roll in my second batch if DF96. Seems 16 is the limit, as the Kentmere 400 looked underdeveloped. Of note, this batch I mixed up myself from the packet they sent, the first batch which lasted longer was the ready to go liquid form.

On the upside, Kentmere 400 dries really flat which makes it very easy to scan. Arista 400 has a curl on the width side, Lomo Fantome 8 curls like a pretzel.
 
Cross Post:
Just developed a roll of Eastman 5234 in DF96. It turned the developer green!! Brand new batch too, hope it is not ruined.

Also only got 33 exposures on what was meant to be a 36exp roll!

FYI came out great - 4 minutes @75.
 
Green developer won't do any harm. If you think it's too green, run a couple rolls of Fompan 120, it'll turn blue/aqua.
 
Yeah it was fine. Just developed this:

Hasselblad H1, 80mm 2.8, Delta 100, DF96 Monobath, Z7 scan.

 
Thread title updated.

If you haven’t already done so, be sure to read the long thread on Monobath Developers at:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/monobath-developers.10935/

The attractions of monobath processing when I was experimenting with it were to try to recapture the look and edge effects of Polaroid Type 55, and to process film in a small space.

The downsides were the large amount of developing agent needed in comparison to conventional processing, and the tendency to produce sludge (remediable with access to silver sequestering chemicals that were costly or hard to obtain) if the solution wasn’t used fairly quickly. Since then it’s also gotten harder to obtain sodium hydroxide, which usually an important ingredient in monobaths, so that’s another issue.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I've noticed residue even after only a few films have been processed. I just pass it through a disposable coffee filter.
 
You can filter out the sludge or wash it off the film, but a further problem is that the fixed out silver in the solution after processing the first rolls is being developed by the developing agents and then fixed out by the hypo, exhausting the developer between uses and causing the sludge to build up further. This is why most monobaths tend not to last long once they’ve been used once. You could replenish, but it’s like feeding a monster that’s eating its own tail.

It would be a challenge to do at home due to the cost and availability of the relevant chemicals, but if a commercial manufacturer could figure out the silver sequestering piece of the puzzle, they could have a really practical, long-lasting, replenishable monobath.
 
I don't have issues with DF96 lasting long. My first batch was good for 18 rolls of film, 2nd one I pulled the plug after 16 rolls. The first batch was in liquid form ready to go, the second was from powder that I had to mix with distilled water.
I much prefer the liquid form.
18 rolls of film from one bottle? Couldn't be happier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register